Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Yes, the death of MLK, JFK, and RFK was truly a fatal blow to our Nation's spirit. I remember it well, the shock, sadness, and hopelessness that the loss of these men, their voices, and their vision felt like. This was truly an exciting and incredible time in our Nation's history and truly I think Dr. Martin Luther King did more for the health and well-being of this Nation, than any other leader, including JFK and RFK. He knew what was right and just and he knew that it was time for racial injustice and inequality to end. He was the Leader, a Leader, in every sense of the word, but it took time for people to get to know Martin Luther King, to trust him, his vision, his strategy, his motives, his heart...he was challenged again, and, again, as any Leader worth their salt should be if he is going to ask people to follow him, trust him, join him. Martin Luther King walked every mile with his people, he was no "junior" in either is experience or qualifications by the time he stepped up to the plate and said...."walk with me, walk beside me," when he asked, he had already covered many many miles, and folks knew he had alread developed the muscle(not talking body muscles) to eventually lift them up.

Idealism will always suffer blows, some fatal, but just as individuals recoup, so do Nations, with time, with mistaken reactionary choices, testing new paths, trying out different approaches ect., idealism may suffer, but it never dies, it just changes face, and strategies this is something we also learned after suffering those fatal blows, as a Nation, with the deaths of MLK, JFK, and RFK, that, even though, their physical presence was gone, they, in fact, in Spirit, were not, are not, they have been with us all along, through thick and thin.

your write,"It's disheartening that America would heed a manipulative slogan like "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" without asking, "Is your soul better off today than it was four years ago?" But the retreat into selfishness and partisan ideology occurred. Now we have a chance to do something about it.

Just curious, your last sentence...now we have a chance to do something about it...you didn't say what...but I bet I can guess.

Although, I will disagree if you are saying what I think you are saying...with more time...maybe...maybe...maybe...but, now, may very well be the exact the wrong time....

I would also like to add that in fact my soul is just fine but my material needs are, in fact, suffering a bit as are many other's that I know of, so this question...are you better off today than four years ago...is very relevant to me and them....my soul is good, though, real good, ....and btw our Nation has suffered a fatal blow with this Bush Administration's perspective on what Leadership is but that doesn't mean we can't begin to guide it back....carefully.

have a wonderful day..ruth

Come on dear Ruth, we have a chance to elect a true secular messiah who is going to renew our spirit. Just sit back, relax, and let the good times roll again. Just like the 60's only better.

The answer is John McCain for president. Did you think I meant Obama? :)

Hope you are doing well, I also hope your material situation improves, glad to hear your soul is in good shape, apparently you might be one of the very few. Don't you know according to one candidate's wife, our collective souls are sick or was it a hole in our souls, I foroget, it keeps changing each week.

I guess it's not Morning in America anymore.

I've said this before, if you want to feel or sing the blues, come on IB and you will get your dose, because the Neo-Con Men will always bring you down.

Be well,

Steve

Do you think a candidate for president whose spiritual leader believes the following from a recent Prager article will lead this country to an idealism that will form the basis of both a spiritual and economic revival?

"Those who cannot see the monumental moral gulf between America and the unspeakably evil jihadists America is fighting in Iraq and elsewhere are not prophets. Those who think Americans got what they deserved on 9/11 are not prophets. Those who think the Russian people were better off under Communism are not prophets. Those who think America developed AIDS and infected people of color with it are not prophets. Those who think America is more worthy of damnation than of blessing are not prophets. They are fools."

"Woe unto those who call good 'evil' and call evil 'good,'" said the Prophet Isaiah

" A man has got to know his limitations"
-Dirty Harry

-Steve

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

I was trying to understand why I feel the need to counter Deepak's posts when he is talking about Idealism in reference to Barak Obama and his campaign for the Presidency. Reading these posts affects me in such a way that I feel that I must say something in response because I feel that there is something just WRONG, or INCORRECT in what he is saying, now, maybe the word wrong is not accurate but it is the best I can do on such short notice. I figured out why this theme bothers me so much and it is because it reminds me a lot of the theme the repubicans used in 2000, the "compassionate conservative" BS.

I have been observing Barak's rise in popularity and I have been observing his campaign strategy which has been, for the most part, just a darn lucky break in that his main rival was and is so disliked by a press and media, who, really, if they want, can, make or break a candidate, by the type of coverage they give. Barak Obama was gifted some "excellent" coverage even when he wasn't even being covered because his rival was busy being the target of the press and media's bias.

Barak Obama has taken full advantage of his lucky position, and, really, he should, he is a politician running a political race and this is not the only kind of situation where he "knows" how use or take advantage of something or someone...

What, I am getting at, is that this is not Idealism or Idealistic....it is pure "opportunism," imo. I am not stating that Barak Obama is a bad man or bad presidential candidate because he "clearly" is an opportunist what I am saying is that the whole....Idealism, truth telling theme is, to me, about as helpful and healing to our Nation's future as "compassinate conservatism" was. The problem here is that his supporters want to run and shout from the rooftops about Barak's Idealism while they will simply....ignore the fact that he is also a "gifted" political opportunist, but I guess if they acknowledge that they will have to acknowledge he is "just" a man, afterall, and, not, a resurrection of one of their past "political heros."

have a wonderful day everyone, ruth

Morning Steve,

Yes, my material needs situation is getting kind of tight but most folks are in the same situation while my soul has been well cared for...

Best wishes, always, to you and your family...ruth

"a revival of spirit, without which every social reform is little more than bickering over entitlement while hiding the heart from view"

Indeed! Time to show this world how vastly superior, how Christ-like, compassionate socialism is, in direct opposition to "compassionate" but we are inherently selfish so make more money conservativism.

Amen

We know what we are seeing, the old consciousness is dying, and the systems built upon it are collapsing. As awareness spreads that which was dependant on ignorance cannot last. The new holistic designed systems are coming to take the place of the old and support the new consciousness. We are in the process of redefining I think Obama represents the new consciousness. Nothing to fear if we do not resist evolution, since there is no stopping it, best to embrace it, the ride is better.

Those that cling to the old fictions will expire with them.

Nature does everything the ideal way, perhaps that is the new idealism. An ideal situation is to serve the needs of all not necessarily the wants, which often disenfranchises the many to the benefit of a few.

To evolve is to transcend, and when we transcend we encounter new experience in which to delight.

The collective is naturally taking control, because it can now.

As gravity engages the unfolding petals, the opening accelerates.

Obama represents this new consciousness.

Ruth, can you be so sure that Obama is a "political opportunist" as you said? Can you absolutely know that it's true?
How do you react when you believe that thought?
Who would you be without the thought?

I think the collective is taking hold because it's scared of economics, war, the future, and other uncheery subjects, and it's looking for a quick fix.

What got us in trouble in the W years has been arrogance at the highest level. Not policy. See, if there had been no arrogance, the policies implemented would have been changed by new data, by compromise and by competence.

I would like one Obama supporter to honestly analyze his intermittent arrogance, his preachy speaking style, and his distance from people who don't have a lot of money.

I'll keep my mind and fingers quiet for anyone willing to do that, except to say thanks for thinking it through, whether I agree or disagree with the resulting analysis.

Hmmmm? What's that I hear? Irish, is that you volunteering? Ah, sorry... John, was that you, or was that Irv?? Sorry, sorry again. I guess no Obama supporter who reads here is up to the task...

I think we need a blend of all the systems of government. None of them will work properly due to our level of consciousness. Currently all three systems have a few benefiting disproportionably to the many. When we switch to collective control with preservation of individual freedoms this will no longer be the case.

The new Universal Government is participatory self government with transparency and controls so no one is led to temptation, open decision making is based on collective wisdom and combined intelligence, and every entity granted complete freedom to evolve without burden. The measure of wealth created proportionate to the real value and number served with everyone having a channel to contribute, even if just a small measure, and therefore the ability to receive and none are left wanting.

Conservative = Wisdom
Liberalism = Freedom

There is no conflict between the two only complement.

As a result of the evolution of our consciousness this new government will naturally come to be.

An autonomous holistic system of harmonious collective anarchy

"I would like one Obama supporter to honestly analyze his intermittent arrogance, his preachy speaking style, and his distance from people who don't have a lot of money."

Just because you imagine that way about Obama doesn't make it so.

"intermittent arrogance" examples please.

"preach speaking style" What you see "preaching" is more lie "inspiring" which has resulting real results with the netroots moments which already has resulted in improbable victories for many democratic runners.

"his distance from people who don't have a lot of money." Like the one he "dissed" in Pennsylvania? His grandmother is kenya is pitch poor, he worked as acicil rights lawyer for 10 years earning just 10,000 dollars per year. He was a community organizer interacting with the poor on the South Side of Chicago for years. He and his wife were in debt paying off their student loan just about 3-4 years ago, until his book got him a few millions tat made him say "rich." You can check his taxes. (in contrast the Clintons earned over 107 millions after they left Whitehouse. Mostly we have Bill influence peddling and doing soem favors to billionaire Burke in 2007 which are not revealed.)

You are right, Bush mislead people with his personal agendas. But I don't see arrogance in Obama's "politics", I see a lot in Clinton's though. There is no difference between her and the republican when it comes to Iraq. She thought that her Iraq vote was the right thing to do. To give authorization to the president to go to war if needed was the right thing to do. Back in 2003 after the Iraq was already going bad, she was "worried" that the war cannot be sustained in the political climate. Bush used to tell lies and kep on repeating them even on the face of mounting evidence to contrary. he keeps telling that war is going on well. The same character trait and denial is hared by Clinton, she keep repeating lies and makes pathetic excuses. She changes her positions based on political expediency. Oh, and she says, Obama and she voted the same after he got into teh senate lie her. He voted to provide armor and protection for troops which is a minimum after you r troops to war. And remember this, she voted for the use of cluster bombs, obama didn't. In the case of cluster bomb usage in Iraq, one-third of causalities were children, what does that tell about hr concern for children? And yes, she AGAIN voted for the Kiel-Lieberman amendment making it easy to invade Iran, Obama didn't.

Its pathetic to see you repeating that obama is "arrogant", based on your perceptions, but who can tell, but his politics aren't, while Hilary's are. And Hillary has shows that she is willing to mislead people just like Bush if it seems politically advantageous.

""his distance from people who don't have a lot of money." tallkig about which, his mother dies prematurely in 1995, because she couldn't afford health care. He and his family didn't have a lot of money right from his childhood up until 1995 at least, even though he graduated form Harvard. He worked with the poorest in south side of Chicago, I don;'t know how that constitutes keeping distance form e poor, if he wished to he would have had a lucrative career as a lawyer in the wall street, or by working for the corporate just like Clinton did as a practicing lawyer.

"What got us in trouble in the W years has been arrogance at the highest level. Not policy. See, if there had been no arrogance, the policies implemented would have been changed by new data, by compromise and by competence."

You are right! and Obama is the right person for the job: the policies implemented would have been changed by new data, by compromise and by competence.

On the contrary, Hillary is found lacking in those areas. Example? Her health care initiative in the 90s, where she showed neither competence nor compromise, and a lots of arrogance, shwoing no willingness to listen to the view of even democrats in her camp.

Lets talk about arrogance and cold calculating heartlessness, Hillary Clinton as a lawyer in Arkansas went after a 12 year old rape victim, defending the alleged rapists, and attacked the character of this girl trying to prove that she routinely sough out the proximity of older men, and every other trick to defend her client. This is nothing wrong technically, as any lawyer is expected to anything legally to defend his client, but not every lawyer is expected to take up cases like that, and to attack the character of a 12 old year girl? No wonder she feels entitled to attack her opponents with every trick of trade.

Hi Martha,

you ask..
"Ruth, can you be so sure that Obama is a "political opportunist" as you said? Can you absolutely know that it's true?
How do you react when you believe that thought?
Who would you be without the thought?"

Martha, I wonder if Deepak and the other Obama supporters can be so sure that Obama is the candidate that best represents the Idealism they so long for in a President? Can they absolutely know that it's true? How do they react when they believe that thought? Who would they be without the thought? hmmmmmmm.ponderings....

very Katie Byronish...:))))))))))

have a wonderful evening, ruth

When Obama was attacked for his lacking patriotism for past many years, especially with the Muslim smear(which is still strong with 10% Americans believing it), and the photo of him not taking the oath of honor were circulated, the easiest thing he could have done is put on lapel flag pins(a practice he discontinued after 911) and drap himself in flags but he didn't, he thinks patriotism has to be shown in actions and not in pins unlike what the republicans do.

Ruth: "politcal opportunist"

The biggest political opportunists are those who compromise principle for political expediency. That best defines Hillary Clinton. Her support for use of cluster bombs, her support for use of torture, her stand on flag burning and support for baning video games are some examples.

Yes, Obama is a political opportunist, if "opportunism" is realism and pragmatism without compromising principles(idealism)

Heather:

It has been sad these many months to read your posts. Over the years you have consistently shown an arrogance and ignorance for the things you would so highly lead us to believe you stand for.

You are a mockery to free thought and the understanding of human nature.

And...changing positions on her beliefs in NAFTA, voting in favor of Bankruptcy bill and being glad that it didn't pass, changing her tunes on Iraq War vote based on political mileage, her stance on Cuba, oil drilling in Texas, etc, and her policy of triangulation is quintessential political opportunism. Check Obama's record in state and senate, he is ranked as the number one most liberal by the National Journal.

"I guess no Obama supporter who reads here is up to the task..."

Sure, yes, because nothing will convince you to change your perceptions. I see a lot of arrogance that's being projected there...

"I guess no Obama supporter who reads here is up to the task..."

Sure, yes, because nothing will convince you to change your perceptions. I see a lot of arrogance that's being projected there...

Sorry Heather, but I have to point this out, I have seen you judging characters in the past, public and private and even me. At least in my case I can say, you were wrong, but you wouldn't agree it it. But the other point I wished to make is your perception of others based on their actions, apparently you have high regard for your intelligence and intuition about the nature of other people, but what you don't seem to appreciate is the fact that it is tour subjective analysis and that is prone to tastes and biases. If one can be less non judgmental about things one can be more objective to appreciate the diversity of opinion that see the not just the worst of ourselves in others and magnify it.

Just for the record, I am an arrogant person, which can seen by my actions, but this doesn't mean that I am not objective enough to support non-arrogance in other people.

Is this the Obama's idealism and speeches people are railing against?

http://www.attytood.com/2008/04/barack_obama_as_reimagined_by.html

When people talk about Obama's idealism they say that about the consistency with which he stands for universal principles. They compare the kind of enthusiasm JFK and RFK brought while they were campaigning that has brought so many new into the political process. The kind of grass roots movement Obama has generated is unprecedented. And this is why he could overcome the party machinery of the establishment candidate. That's why he could win big in all those caucus states where the more informed, passionate and concerned folks partcipate in political process. That is why an astonishing figure of more than 1.25 million donors, most of those donating in amounts less than $200 have contributed to the Obama campaign so far. He raised more money than the uncontested Bush had raised in 2004. That's why the grass roots MoveOn and progressive blogs everywhere have supported Obama campaign. The interesting thing about Obama is not the man himself but the kind of movement he inspired and brought so many people in active volunteering, that tells a lot about the person and his politics.

I suggest heather et al to rmeove the ego element in oneself and in elevating or demeaning the leaders like Hillary and Obama or even Bush, and see that the real leadership lies in the kind of team and the like minded people one brings into the process to accomplish a common task to bring about positive change.

Lets see about Barack's "arrogance" and his "keeping away from people who don't have a lot of money," shall we?

In 1988, after working as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago for three years, Barack Obama enrolled in Harvard Law school. In his book, "Dreams From My Father," Barack wrote about the difficulty of leaving behind the community he had spent so much time with in order to go to Harvard. But he explained that:

"I had things to learn in law school, things that would help me bring about real change. "

Barack promised the people in the communities he had helped organize that he would return to Chicago to continue his work, and he kept his word.

From the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamalegal6apr06,1,5511037.story

"Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration."

From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html

" Obama chose not to trade his golden credentials, including the presidency of The Harvard Law Review, for a big-money job at a corporate firm. Instead, he worked at a small Chicago civil rights firm, representing people who said they had been discriminated against or denied the right to vote.

“He was a good lawyer working a very hard beat,” said Richard Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago."

Once again from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamalegal6apr06,1,5511037.story

"Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.

... He did have some noteworthy cases. Among them, Obama filed a major 1995 suit that successfully forced Illinois to enforce the 1993 federal Motor Voter law, which sought to make it easier for people to register to vote."

Of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard's reputation, the Boston Globe reported:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice/?page=2

""It's a real do-good firm," says Fay Clayton, lead counsel for the National Organization for Women in a landmark lawsuit aimed at stopping abortion clinic violence. "Barack and that firm were a perfect fit. He wasn't going to make as much money there as he would at a LaSalle Street firm or in New York, but money was never Barack's first priority anyway."

... Obama was part of a team of lawyers representing black voters and aldermen that forced Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the City Council drew up after the 1990 census. They said the boundaries were discriminatory.

After an appeals court ruled the map violated the federal Voting Rights Act, attorneys for both sides drew up a new set of ward boundaries."

Barack's legal work dropped off sharply after he was elected to the Illinois Senate. The Boston Globe quoted Judson Miner recounting how "on [Barack's] second day down in Springfield he called me and said, 'Don't pay me — this is a full-time job.'"

Barack continued working for the firm during the summer when the state legislature was out of session, but he stepped down from practicing law completely by 2002 as his political career took hold.

This is a central part of Barack's life and story. He could have written his ticket at any law firm in the country. . . . He decided instead that he wanted to be a civil rights attorney, and he signed up with a small firm that had a reputation for doing this kind of work.

I heard about Obama not being "patriotic" enough, and his "aloofness" but the charge of "arrogance" is even more flimsier.

Newsweek's veteran Howard Fineman answers about Obama's nature of candidacy in an interview in Pittsburgh Tribune-Review a couple of days ago:

Q: Unlike Hillary, who thinks she knows the answers to everything already and has everything figured out, Obama is vague enough so that you aren't sure whether he might not favor semi-privatization of Social Security or something.

A: If you happened to watch Chris Matthews' "Hardball" interview from West Chester University with Obama (Wednesday), he came across, as always, as the sort of soul of reasonableness and open-mindedness. He sells himself as an open-minded adjudicator, if you will. I think there are different kinds of presidencies and presidential candidates. There are the crusader types -- and Hilary would fall into that category. There are the adjudicator types. And the third category would be the custodians, if you will -- the people running for re-election or to follow somebody else's legacy. Obama is presenting himself as a wise judge. He is a lawyer and he was a law professor and he's coming across as an open-minded guy. That's what he's trying to sell himself as. It will be the task of the Republicans to say, "Uh, uh. You aren't really that. What you really are is a doctrinaire liberal and look at your voting record and look at what you said." So that will be a lot of what the election is about -- if he's the nominee.

Ref. 9

How are we to "analyze" what can rightfully be called "your opinions?" Some of us would disagree with your core premise upon which your opinions are based.

Re. Freyja,

I will analyze what they refer to as his intermittent arrogance. This means he is arrogant sometimes and sometimes he isn't. They like this label for him. First, both words are multisyllabic. Second, whenever someone points out a quote from a speech or a passage in a book or an answer to a question or any of hundreds of encounters between Barack and people where it is clear that Barack is warm and funny and down-to-earth and friendly and not arrogant at all, then the quiz masters can say, gotcha! We said he has intermittent arrogance. That way, if no one ever produces an example of actual arrogance, they are still covered by that word "intermittent". They will, however, produce examples; all will be highly debatable. Best advice: If he sounds a little arrogant once in a while? Yes, it's a character defect. It's not the crime of the century, but he's working on it.

Well said, Freyja and Vanessa. Can't agree more.

I visited JFK Library-Memorial-Museum building a couple of years ago and watched JFK delver speeches and read many of his. I have seen RFK's speeches on the campaign trail too, and read Abraham Lincoln's classics as well(which are considered the universal yardstick and te highest rated to analyze political speeches and politicians.) Obama's campaign speeches are comparable to RFK's and many of his oft praised major speeches over the years, were comparable to Lincoln's which are many times better than JFK's major speeches in my opinion. Not many are aware of his campaign speeches which are full of details about policy and concrete plans and proposals which he gave in the days leading to Iowa, and many thought he was too professorial. By the nature of stump speeches themsleves you are supposed to use a lot of the power of rhetoric and give rousing speeches(for ex. Howard Dean), and just because it got too much coverage on MSM doesn't mean that he's just that. Lately, his speeches incorporate a lot more content and less rhetoric than his rivals. His Townhall meetings(and his interviews with Editorial boards), which obviously don't get coverage, shows his grasp of issues and the consistency and clarity of his thought. This guy was the president of the Harvard Law Review(first black man to hold that position,) he could have traded that for large bucks in the law firm of his choice, but he didn't. It shows his deep commitment to purpose in life - his faith was strengthened while doing community work (after his college graduation in NY) to help those people who lost their jobs when a steel plant was closed due to Regan policies in the poverty stuck south side of Chicago. His study of Constitutional law at Harvard, is seen in his commitment to bring more transparency in govt, and reducing the Executive powers of the Present, Bush and Hillary both stand for more executive powers, that;s one reason why she thinks it was the right thing to give the president the power to take us to war if he felt it was best for the country.

This post at Daily Kos is worth reading in the context of Deepak's post; MLK, Obama and speeches:

The Promised Land

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/6/15858/91359/808/490413

The author say "A few years ago I listened to an NPR special on the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. As I listened to clips from numerous speeches given over many years, I was struck by how often he challenged the listeners. ... And he spoke of difficult matters without pretending the changes he sought would be easy or without conflict.

[...]

He analyzes the last speech given by MLK and compares it to Obama's speech on race and concludes:

...There is no single promised land awaiting our nation. As liberals and progressives, we inherently believe that there will always be work to be done, that the job of "perfecting" is unending, that we must never be content, that there will always be struggles to overcome as we seek entry in to the next promised land. Obama's speech is one of the rare times when a politician discussed a volatile and highly emotional issues, acknowledged difficulties, explained complexities, and inspired Americans to strive to overcome, to improve, to do what is necessary to create a more perfect union, to continue to climb to the mountain top, to look over in to the promised land...and to keep on striving for the next promised land, without fear.

Bill Clinton has this habit of finger pointing and his cheeks turning red when he loses cool, and he lied under oath for which he was disbarred, but he was considered a good president by many. McCain has this reckless nature to him, he was on record used the F---word at least 10 times, against his own fellow repulcians when they tend to disagree with him in a discussion about policies. This is a real issue whether he is fit to be a president or not, but i guess it doesn't matter, he is a brave man and a maverick. And Hillary is a person who was subjected to unfair vicious attacks during her 8 years. They both earned their ticket, but not Obama who was privileged and has had it easy all his life.

You know, the reason the blue collar and the rural demographic(which is a large constituent in Penn) tend to prefer Clinton in this race, is not beacuse Clinton loves the less wealthy and they love her back, its beacuse they tend to have low info and generally go by little more than name association; they remember fondly the good economic times of the Clinton era. And many of the older generations cannot yet prefer a black man. Ask the frank speaking charismatic Gov. of Pennsylvania, who supports Clinton, there are many many segregated pockets in Penn, who simply just won't vote for a Black.

Kos, the founder of the progressive blog Daily Kos has an interesting artcile in the upcoming issue of the Newsweek:

A Silver Lining In the Blue Battle

Hillary's destructive coup attempt: it's a good thing for the Democratic Party.
By Markos Moulitsas | NEWSWEEK
Apr 14, 2008 Issue

http://www.newsweek.com/id/130606

Hillary Clinton has proved during the past few months that she is a fighter, that she is tenacious, and that she is in the race to win. There's just one problem. She's already lost....

"Yet while the Beltway establishment frets about the alleged damage this drawn-out contest is doing to the Democratic Party, in reality, it's been an almost unalloyed good.

For one, the frenzied organizing around the country has proved a catalyst for dramatic party building in states that had been Democratically dormant. State after state has reported record turnout, and thousands of new Democrats are registering in advance of each contest. In upcoming Pennsylvania, Democrats have gained a net 200,000 registered voters over Republicans this year; that number is 105,000 in North Carolina.

The party can now take advantage of the infrastructure both campaigns leave behind. The unprecedented level of participation and organization not only reinforces Blue states, it improves Democratic odds in traditional swing states. In fact, the tide threatens to make GOP stalwarts like Texas up for grabs this fall.

The reverberations are being felt far beyond the race for the White House. Democrats are poised to make massive gains at the congressional and local levels for a second consecutive election cycle. They've already started: in a March 8 House special election, Obama volunteers helped Democrats capture the solidly conservative Illinois congressional seat formerly held by Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Finally, there's no denying that the extra pressure has made Obama a better candidate. After living a charmed political life, with nary a serious general-election battle against a Republican on his résumé, he needed to prove his mettle in hand-to-hand political combat. His able handling of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright revelations didn't just prove his deft political skills to worried supporters like me and superdelegates. It allowed him to address a potentially explosive issue well before November (though it's a relationship the GOP is sure to exploit).

No one can persuade Clinton to get out of the primary race. But by any metric imaginable, Obama has already won. The superdelegates aren't self-destructive enough to change that, and the sooner they line up behind Obama, the sooner Democrats can focus their fire on the real target: John McCain. Clinton can stick around, but the rest of the party will move on without her."

From whence comes this malevolence towards Obama? The severity in emotion on this site comes across as irrational hatred and does not leave me inclined to believe anything negative written about him - especially when there is no evidence presented to make the case and name calling is used. Examples of such at intent blog include:

- his arrogance is like Bush's
- his ignorance was so pitiful I just couldn't write it up
- Mr. Obama is a Hoodwinker and a do nothing
- You just forgot the part about raising everyone's hopes with empty promises, fancy rhetoric and preachy speeches
- He has no credentials and no qualifications for this job. Just a team of trolls and marketeeeers[sic]

These tactics are reminiscent of my experience of school yard bullies and are therefore best ignored. If one doesn't want Obama to be president, it is best to make a compelling case with evidence and logic if one is interested in swaying others' opinions.

You know, Karl Rove had similar things to say about Barack Obama the other day, that what's been revealed is his self-confidence--to the point of cockiness--right now. Hope you know that. Any similar interpretations of incidents related to Obama on the campaign trail just so conveniently buys into the narrative.

I am also SICK and TIRED of seeing the word "COCKY" used to describe Senator Obama. Welcome to the new code word. I have seen several Clinton supporters use this term. This is also one of Karl Rove's favorite descriptive term for Obama. Looking at his academic accomplishment, his political successes, his family life, when compared to the other 2 in the race, he has a freaking right to be confident and if you don't like it, too bad!

And "arrogance"! This infuriates me. Hillary can talk about her 35 years of experience and being ready DAY ONE....and being ready at 3 am....and passing the commander-in-chief test and all that BULL.......but Obama can't be confident that he is more prepared than she is. Isn't that EXACTLY what Hillary, McCain think about themselves.......but Obama is arrogant?

How is he cocky and she assured. I am sorry about internal prejudices are EXPLODING out in this race and is sickening. Now notice I didn't say racism, I said prejudiced because thats what it is. You automatically are attaching a negative connotation to him having confidence that he can do the job, yet when a 60 year old white woman and 200 year old Rep say essential the same thing these supporters think she is a strong confident woman him a confident old war veteran

You Anti Obama people need to really soul search as to why you come away with such negative feelings towards him. Those that defend they're position with points and specific issues more power to you and I agree to disagree. Those that just say.....I don't like him he seems arrogant, I never trusted him from the time I first saw him, etc etc........ all of you..........have issues and prejudices you need to overcome...

A Fatal Blow to Foreign Policy

Barak Obama stated while in San Fran the he didn't need a foreign policy expert....

Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he's looking for in a running mate. "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go.

"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . .

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . .

"Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I've passed those tests and my two opponents have not."

There are a number of interesting things about Senator Obama's remarks. If Senators Clinton and McCain have not passed "those tests," likely they will be surprised to hear it. Secondly, even though I've researched and written on Hillary Clinton's trips abroad and consequently been critical of her claims, my estimation of her foreign travels is that they were sometimes quite a bit more than a dance, a briefing and a tour. What Barack Obama's remarks last night in San Francisco reveal, however, is his self-confidence--to the point of cockiness--right now. This is exactly the same demeanor on display last week in Pennsylvania.

sorry about the cut and paste but I didn't want to leave and yummies out....what I liked mostest was when he said"....I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on....a bunch of stuff...yes, I am sure that can be arranged, also the AS expert on...whew, I wonder how many things he is and expert on...maybe we should get a list...:) and I loved this...."I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

WOW. I wonder if he would hire me since I knew what they were by just reading the newspapers, and it isn't even my JOB to know.

oh, and the TESTS he claimed to pass...let me guess...the famous NO to no-where, again. god, and they talk about Hillary's story telling problem!

you know this article just made me chuckle...you go Barak...you smartalec you!

Seriously,

Barak Obama, the more he talks, the more he exposes of himself, his perspective on himself, the more I feel that when I stated that he reminds me of the kind of person who simply feels he is just too smart to NOT be the Ruler of the Free World....was, in fact, hitting the ole nail right on the head!!

Thanks Barak, keep talking young man!!

bye everyone, ruth

1...u begin to sound like broken record...

2...u disliked him from the day u found out he was a candidate...

3...ur dislike of him is so strong, u are likely to vote repub of stay home...

4...i wonder if u'd feel the same way if he wasn't who he is...

5...in a way, i share ur feelings 'cause i cud never vote for that old hack...she shud use her millions and retire on an island or buy an island..

6...if she had any class she wud get outta the race and allow the dems to focus of the repubs and the Dino from Zona.... but
no, this won't happen...it's all about "me,me,me, me, me, me!"

7...get it now or get it later...she will win the nomination in her dreams..

8...the country is suffering from clinton fatigue!...most guests know when to leave the party...a few don't!

ruth: A Fatal Blow to Foreign Policy: In Ref. to Mayhill Flowers artcile at HuffPost

It seems that every single artcile Mayhill wrote at huffPost calls Obama "cocky." She is one of those last left rabid Hillary supporter who is there to grid her axe. And no wonder ruth seeks her out, just like she sought Erica Jong, Taylor Marsh out and copy pastes their opinions to substitute for her lack of anything new to belittle Obama.

ruth: A Fatal Blow to Foreign Policy: In Ref. to Mayhill Flowers artcile at HuffPost

It seems that every single artcile Mayhill wrote at huffPost calls Obama "cocky." She is one of those last left rabid Hillary supporter who is there to grid her axe. And no wonder ruth seeks her out, just like she sought Erica Jong, Taylor Marsh out and copy pastes their opinions to substitute for her lack of anything new to belittle Obama.

Hello D,

You are right I didn't like him from the start because from the start I felt he was and is a person who "thinks" he knows a whole lot more than he actually does. Probably, because it takes one to know one...but in my case I am not asking you to put your trust in me to lead and care for this Nation as your President.

Also, I think the cockiness aspect of Barak's personality is very apparent, he tries to cover it up by his fixed serious facial expression and by his upright, straight physical posture and his speech making abilities. I do believe there are those who have the same kind of veiled over "intellectual" cockiness about themselves and that is one reason Barak does so well in intellectual circles.....

I mean, Diablo, who in their right mind says(when they are running for the highest office in the land)..I would like someone who knows a bunch of stuff that I am not AS EXPERT on? This is not the thinking of someone who KNOWS a whole heck of a lot, imo, it sounds like a precocious college student.

Barak Obama is a man who NEEDS a few more years in class....seriously....it could only do him a world of good....we should not enable this precocious junior Senator, we should encourage him to continue his learning process....but hey I'm just saying!!

best wishes to you D, ruth

Obviously the likes of Ruth seem to be quintessential Karl Rove specimens. Just goes to show the smear tactics and character assassination can work universally, and is not just republican or democratic demographic specific, and all is ever well to put bread and butter on the tables of Karl Rove's of the world. She doesn't seem to have read post #34 which directly criticizes her post #35.

"Barak Obama is a man who NEEDS a few more years in class....seriously....it could only do him a world of good."

Oh yes, and why is it that ruth always parrots Hillary campaign's talking points. yeah, the campaign is again playing the 'Obama as a veep' card. If there is someone lacking originality on this it is consistently ruth, who bases her opinions on sexist and fiercely biased defenders of Hillary like Erica Jong(who has now seen the light), Taylor Marsh and Mayhill Flower(All three post at HuffPost,) and any one in 20 pro Hillary blog posts or news links at the same site.

Mayhill Flower, a over 60 year old political writer has used the word "cocky" in EVERY post she wrote to describe Obama. That's Karl Roves favorite word to describe Obama as well.

Just look at the headlines of her previous posts which includes the one with Obama "flirting", she either criticizes Obama or defends Hillary with fierce energy and bias:

Pennsylvania Campaign Journal: Obama Hams It Up, Flirts, And Gets A Bit Cocky
April 2, 2008

Pennsylvania Voters Dismiss Obama's Momentum
April 1, 2008

Obama Plays Nice In Pennsylvania
March 31, 2008

Telling Tales About Her First Lady Travels: Where and Why Did Hillary Exaggerate?
March 26, 2008

TV Media's Willful Misunderstanding of Barack Obama's Race Speech
March 21, 2008

A Closer Look at Clinton's Foreign Policy Experience
March 17, 2008

No wonder, 95% of the comments to Mayhill Flowers blog posts, including the latest one aptly criticize her for journalistic malpractice. How would that be to recycle all the hit pieces and character attacking smear articles against Hillary Clinton from the 90's. Or the latest ones form the right wing blogs like Town Hall... Would I? No, I won't.

Guys, maybe some of you should take a step back and go here:
http://dingo.care2.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf

HEATHER!!ATTENTION!!LOOK HERE FOR ARTICLE INFO:

Sorry, bout that but I keep getting an error message every time I try to click into open thread...I copied and pasted the article here it is number #35......I read it Sunday at huffingtonpost but I cannot recall who wrote it..actually the great researcher Irv...posted her name in one of his comments....interesting thing is that it was picked up by the Boston Globe and written about there, today, too, browsing through the google news headlines I saw it. Irvine thinks because it was ONLY a question at a fundraiser it is no big deal...but I beg to differ....I think how he answers this question is a very clear picture of how he perceives himself, his capabilities, and his political astuteness, I think Barak Obama thinks quite HIGHLY of himself:))) ....

have a great night....been on this computer way to much today....ruth